Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ability to order support ship to repair and re-arm specific friendly fighters and bombers #6289

Open
Sessile-Nomad opened this issue Aug 11, 2024 · 7 comments
Labels
ai A feature or issue related to the AI algorithms enhancement A new feature or upgrade of an existing feature to add additional functionality.

Comments

@Sessile-Nomad
Copy link

I see it working like this in game:

1 - call in support ship (if one is not already in play)

2 - target the friendly fighter/bomber you want repaired/rearmed

3 - select the support ship from the comms menu

4 - select ‘repair my target’ (this being a new order option that this feature would add) Ideally, this needs to be able to override the existing support ship queue.

5 - support ship then rearms/repairs the fighter/bomber as usual.

6 - support ship goes back to retail behaviour, ready to be called in again.

I need this because my campaigns feature support ship repair and rely heavily on wingman control. Those wingmen tend to get badly damaged as a result and will need repair.

It seems the AI only takes into account secondary weapon depletion when it calls in the support ship, so a badly damaged but fully armed fighter/bomber will not call it in.

@naomimyselfandi
Copy link
Contributor

I've definitely noticed critically damaged fighters not calling for support even when support ships repairing hulls is enabled. How much of your use case would be satisfied by making them aware of that?

As for ordering rearms, it's not a bad idea either way. I feel like bypassing the support queue is likely a non-starter: most of the time, the player won't care, either because there's no time pressure or no one else is rearming, so it feels like more complexity than it's worth.

@Sessile-Nomad
Copy link
Author

Sessile-Nomad commented Aug 12, 2024 via email

@naomimyselfandi
Copy link
Contributor

naomimyselfandi commented Aug 21, 2024

I get where you're coming from. I just think they can coexist. :) At the very least, critical hull damage should be considered while good-rearm-time is in effect. As for player-initiated orders, it looks like most of the work's already done; the order already exists, but can't (currently) be added to the comms board. (I'm going to change that in FSO, but it's probably possible to set up a LuaAI workaround in the short term.)

@Sessile-Nomad
Copy link
Author

Sessile-Nomad commented Aug 21, 2024 via email

@wookieejedi wookieejedi added enhancement A new feature or upgrade of an existing feature to add additional functionality. ai A feature or issue related to the AI algorithms labels Aug 26, 2024
@Sessile-Nomad
Copy link
Author

Had a thought. Since the support ship needs the fighter/bomber to be stationary to dock, ordering the support ship to rearm and repair a specific fighter/bomber might not work if the fighter/bomber keeps moving...

So perhaps another way would be to add something to the comms menu that orders a specific fighter/bomber to call in the support ship, since then it would stay still for the support ship as usual. Would that work/be easier?

@Sessile-Nomad
Copy link
Author

... or a keyboard short cut which triggers the currently targeted friendly to initiate the call in support function.

@Goober5000
Copy link
Contributor

That would make a lot of sense. Ordering a fighter/bomber to call for rearm could take advantage of most of the existing code. The only difference is that the trigger would be the player's command rather than the AI logic.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ai A feature or issue related to the AI algorithms enhancement A new feature or upgrade of an existing feature to add additional functionality.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants